By this, I mean, developers *are* working on improving the features
currently offered by OpenBSD. In general people work on things which
they will find the most useful first. Sometimes this matches up with
what you want, other times it doesn't.
Are they willing to take a suggestions from the
On Feb 17, 2008 11:23 PM, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me take a stab of responding to this...
Thanks for responding...
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 05:33:12PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hi,
NOTE: No intention to behave like a troll.
I've been following the
Zbigniew Baniewski ha scritto:
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 09:52:34PM +0100, raven wrote:
Raven, learn to write understandable English first, then try to reply
to my mails.
I will try, thanks for a suggestion, english not is my mother tongue.
But, you still dumb.
I can see
Hi,
It gets stranger.
How is a bare bones code ever going to be useful to a non developing user?
Its useful to them only when its part of an overall system.
And that overall system in a really usable state is only available via
CDs which need to be purchased.
aehm, hello ? I do buy the cd's,
Jussi Peltola ha scritto:
For each message in this thread that I consider insulting (10 so far), I
will donate 1 euro to OpenBSD to compensate for lost developer time
reading such messages. Being a student my budget can't take more, but at
least I try to be grateful.
Keep up the good work
On 2/17/08, Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoff Steckel wrote:
Threads or any other form of uncontrolled resource sharing
are very bad ideas.
that might be true for those that don't understand threads.
for other it can be highly benefitial.
Indeed, threads are bad strikes me as
--- Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to run more of the same you fork.
Threads usefulness are limited in scope. Threads dangers are endless.
Nonetheless there are good reasons for threading; just not as many as
people give it credit for. Ssh is not one of those use
Gregg Reynolds wrote:
On 2/17/08, Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoff Steckel wrote:
Threads or any other form of uncontrolled resource sharing
are very bad ideas.
that might be true for those that don't understand threads.
for other it can be highly benefitial.
Indeed, threads are
If you want to run more of the same you fork.
Threads usefulness are limited in scope. Threads dangers are endless.
Nonetheless there are good reasons for threading; just not as many as
people give it credit for. Ssh is not one of those use cases where
threading is important.
On Sun, Feb 17,
On Feb 17, 2008 8:01 PM, Geoff Steckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gregg Reynolds wrote:
On 2/17/08, Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoff Steckel wrote:
Threads or any other form of uncontrolled resource sharing
are very bad ideas.
that might be true for those that don't understand
Actually what Ted has done was utterly disastrous, he knows his own
code well enough to have completed it.
BTW, you are as big an oaf as Richard Stallman, you keep ranting about
how you've put in your blood, sweat and tears, but forget to
understand the point that without us users you are
To the majority on this list -- my apologies if I end up feeding this
troll instead of making him 'go away'. to the OP -- this is why you got
absolutely NO answer from the devs. and now for the archives in the
hopes that at least some of the future would be posters will research
before
On Feb 17, 2008 7:15 AM, Peter Haag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On February 17, 2008 11:28:42 AM +0100 Peter Haag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
|
| --On February 16, 2008 11:20:29 PM -0500 Richard Daemon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
|
| | Hi,
| |
| | I'm really stumped on this and any help
David Higgs wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 8:01 PM, Geoff Steckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gregg Reynolds wrote:
On 2/17/08, Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoff Steckel wrote:
Threads or any other form of uncontrolled resource sharing
are very bad ideas.
that might be true for those that
--- Geoff Steckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
threads is a particular programming model of multiple execution
contexts in a (mostly) shared memory and (mostly) shared resource
environment which is not cost-effective for producing reliable
software.
Only because people design threaded programs
On Feb 18, 2008 1:52 AM, Jason Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008 1:16 AM, David Higgs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 1:53 PM, Mayuresh Kathe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Its good to know that Ted did indeed try to
On Feb 18, 2008 2:25 AM, Kenneth R Westerback [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:23:44AM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 11:23 PM, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me take a stab of responding to this...
Thanks for responding...
On Sun, Feb
On Feb 18, 2008 2:22 AM, raven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mayuresh Kathe ha scritto:
Raven, learn to write understandable English first, then try to reply
to my mails.
I will try, thanks for a suggestion, english not is my mother tongue.
But, you still dumb.
English isn't my native
Geoff Steckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
threads is a particular programming model of multiple execution
contexts in a (mostly) shared memory and (mostly) shared resource
environment which is not cost-effective for producing reliable software.
Are you really unable to see the irony in
On Feb 17, 2008 11:16 PM, Geoff Steckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Higgs wrote:
Assuming that a software program is not system-critical or requires
high security, and it benefits greatly from a shared memory/resource
model, I fail to see why threading can not be cost-effective.
May I
I forgot to post a followup to this. I had a buddy of mine who ran
into a similiar issue the other day which was the exact problem I had
had. I figured it out way back when(year ago?) and if he just ran into
the problem now Im sure others have and will in the future.
The issue was the network the
Lies
chefren wrote:
... Richard Stallman stopped [coding] doing so long time ago...
B) Richard Stallman puts users first, =like you!=, Richard Stallman
=believes= users are more important than coders so coders should be
enslaved by the users. Which is plain STUPID since without coders
On Feb 18, 2008 7:57 AM, Leonardo Rodrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually what Ted has done was utterly disastrous, he knows his own
code well enough to have completed it.
BTW, you are as big an oaf as Richard Stallman, you keep ranting about
how you've put in your blood, sweat and
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:20:22PM -0500, System Administrator wrote:
To the majority on this list -- my apologies if I end up feeding this
troll instead of making him 'go away'. to the OP -- this is why you got
absolutely NO answer from the devs. and now for the archives in the
hopes that
On Feb 18, 2008 1:55 AM, Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
think a generally usable 64/128 bit file system,
you have that much porn that you need a 128bit fs?
Ya I do :)
After spending the weekend testing this every which way and searching
the net and archives to no avail, I need a few more eyes to help
determine whether this is a bug, a feature, or some minor stupidity on
my part...
First the environment:
OpenBSD 4.2-stable (GENERIC) #1: Fri Feb 1 02:28:33
Marco Peereboom wrote:
If you want to run more of the same you fork.
Threads usefulness are limited in scope. Threads dangers are endless.
Nonetheless there are good reasons for threading; just not as many as
people give it credit for. Ssh is not one of those use cases where
threading is
On 18/02/2008, at 8:31 PM, System Administrator wrote:
After spending the weekend testing this every which way and searching
the net and archives to no avail, I need a few more eyes to help
determine whether this is a bug, a feature, or some minor stupidity on
my part...
[cut]
into a file to
28 matches
Mail list logo
